4.3 Review

Early History of Laboratory Breeding of Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) Focusing on the Origins and Use of Selected Strains

Journal

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ENTOMOLOGY
Volume 47, Issue 6, Pages 957-971

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1603/ME10152

Keywords

Aedes aegypti; laboratory strain; source identification; historical review

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The yellow fever mosquito, Aedes aegypti (L.) (Diptera: Culicidae), is well recognized for its extensive adaptacion to diverse ecological conditions and for genetic variation. Recognizing the importance of strain, of this mosquito, researchers have established a large number of laboratory strains. Sol fie of the popular strains have been used for research for years in many laboratories around the world. However, the exact origins of many of these strains are unknown. In this review, publications and archival records were examined to report the early laboratory mosquito rearing practices around the world and to identify the origins of selected strains. The records showed that inter-laboratory sharing of strains was already underway in the early part of the 20th century because of the ease of breeding Ae. aegypti and of sending eggs by mail. It also was found that the four strains established in major U.S. institutions by the mid-1930s, including the ROCK (short for Rockefeller) strain, had been derived from Cuba, Nigeria, Philippines, or Puerto Rico, all known for a long history of transmission of yellow fever virus or dengue virus rather than from North America. The strains used for research in Europe were primarily derived from West Africa, but strains of Asian, Caribbean, and South American origins also were used for comparative experiments among geographic strains. Neglected issues related to strain designation and original source identification in scientific publications were found and their relevance to current research is discussed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available